3 ms·

My key takeaway from this article is that we cannot trust the closed-door fact-checkers of Snopes, Politifact, AP and others. They're evidently not acting in t

by cbeach 3y ago

My key takeaway from this article is that we cannot trust the closed-door fact-checkers of Snopes, Politifact, AP and others. They're evidently not acting in the public interest, either by incompetence, or worse: by collaborating with the authoritarians who are rising in Western government. It's clear from the truckers protest in Canada (with participants having their bank accounts frozen on order of Prime Minister Trudeau) that Western governments are willing to take draconian measures. And on the basis of this example, it's obvious to see how kill switches in vehicles could be misused by a government that desperately wants its own way.

jlmorton 3y ago
This. That was really a wake-up call. I certainly do not support honking horns all night in cities for weeks, and I wouldn't have batted an eye if the government declared the protest a riot, arrested every individual involved, and put them all in court the next week. But the extrajudicial freezing of bank accounts under an Emergency Act was a siren, and I'll certainly view any new proposed new tools through that lens.
eesmith 3y ago
The article is lying to you. Do not trust it. The law does not require a kill switch of any sort, much less one that can be activated remotely. The phrase is "prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if an impairment is detected". Limit can mean a lot of things besides preventing the car from driving. Consider that if you fail the test then a warning lamp appears. If you continue to fail the test for another 5 minutes, and are driving over 20 mph, then your car starts flashing its lights and honking its horn until the test passes again or you stop the car. Or, a governor engages, ramping down to 10mph over a period of 10 minutes. Those result in limited operation, but are not kill switches. Yes, the law could allow interlocks which prohibit use completely, just like those convicted of DUI may already required to have interlocks installed. But it certainly does not mandate it.
- cbeach 3y ago
  To summarise, you're suggesting we shouldn't worry about a worst-case interpretation of the law, because you're confident that we'll have a best-case interpretation of the law. The path to hell is paved with generous assumptions that government won't take full advantage of the powers it granted itself
  - eesmith 3y ago
    That is a wrong summary. The claim is that the feds mandated a kill switch. The law does not mandate a kill switch. You have a several-stage process where the worst-case scenarios has to play out. 1) the technology needs to be more fully developed; 2) the policies need to be put into place (this could take years); 3) there is at least two years after #2 before it's required, and 4) the majority of Congress have to not want to change it. The materials I linked to earlier pointed out that in the 1970s Congress mandated driver seat belt interlocks, only to repeat it when there was enough outrage. So it's not like #4 can't happen. The government could raise taxes to 100%. That's not a worst-case event that I'm going to spend time talking about. Don't buy the fear-mongering this link is trying to sell you. And even if I'm wrong, you have years to advocate for change once the worst-case becomes public.

by cbeach 3y ago

jlmorton 3y ago

This. That was really a wake-up call. I certainly do not support honking horns all night in cities for weeks, and I wouldn't have batted an eye if the government declared the protest a riot, arrested every individual involved, and put them all in court the next week. But the extrajudicial freezing of bank accounts under an Emergency Act was a siren, and I'll certainly view any new proposed new tools through that lens.

eesmith 3y ago

The article is lying to you. Do not trust it. The law does not require a kill switch of any sort, much less one that can be activated remotely. The phrase is "prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if an impairment is detected". Limit can mean a lot of things besides preventing the car from driving. Consider that if you fail the test then a warning lamp appears. If you continue to fail the test for another 5 minutes, and are driving over 20 mph, then your car starts flashing its lights and honking its horn until the test passes again or you stop the car. Or, a governor engages, ramping down to 10mph over a period of 10 minutes. Those result in limited operation, but are not kill switches. Yes, the law could allow interlocks which prohibit use completely, just like those convicted of DUI may already required to have interlocks installed. But it certainly does not mandate it.

cbeach 3y ago
To summarise, you're suggesting we shouldn't worry about a worst-case interpretation of the law, because you're confident that we'll have a best-case interpretation of the law. The path to hell is paved with generous assumptions that government won't take full advantage of the powers it granted itself
- eesmith 3y ago
  That is a wrong summary. The claim is that the feds mandated a kill switch. The law does not mandate a kill switch. You have a several-stage process where the worst-case scenarios has to play out. 1) the technology needs to be more fully developed; 2) the policies need to be put into place (this could take years); 3) there is at least two years after #2 before it's required, and 4) the majority of Congress have to not want to change it. The materials I linked to earlier pointed out that in the 1970s Congress mandated driver seat belt interlocks, only to repeat it when there was enough outrage. So it's not like #4 can't happen. The government could raise taxes to 100%. That's not a worst-case event that I'm going to spend time talking about. Don't buy the fear-mongering this link is trying to sell you. And even if I'm wrong, you have years to advocate for change once the worst-case becomes public.